LAW QUERIES.

Otago Witness, Issue 2954, 26 October 1910, Page 51

LAW QUERIES.

tAuamreil by a Solicitor of th* Suprenve Ooart •i K«w Zealand. L*tt«r» and Telegrims mutt be *4ar«n*d to " LEI," c/o Editar, Otago Wi:ne§«, Dosadto.j Builder.—(l) Yes. (2) Apply to the Pest-mastei-ger-eral for pi rmission. Anxious.—(l) If the matter were contesiid in court, the sale not? would no doubt be declared invalid. (2) The really aggrieved party is the person who paid the extra money, 'and he has a cause of action against A, the vendor. Kent.—Yes. The law is that if there be a tenancy and no agreement as to its durrtion. then such tenancy shall be deeded to be a ttnancv determinable at the will of either of the parties by one month's notice in writing. J C- asks: "Is it legal for the management of any public place of amusement where a charge is made for to refuse to give exit passes?"—Answer: Yes. INSURANCE.—(I) The policy does not become vcid for the reason that the statement reiativ« to age v.v.s not knowingly or wil-

fully untrue. (2) No. (3) The terms and conditions upon which the contract was entered into may be varied 03* mutual ' agreement between you and the Government Insurance Commissioner. •Dealer.—The law is that where the seller delivers to the buyer a quantity of goods l-ess than he contracted for, the buyer may reject them, but if the buyer accepts the goods so delivered he must pay for them at the contract rave. You are .therefor* liable only for the quantity received at the rate of 57s 6d per ton. In a Fix.—(l) The county council has no authority. (2) You cannot compel the council to have the ditch cleaned out. (3) There is no case against the department. Your remedy is set out in Part IV of "The Land Drainage Act, 1908." (4) The river boards are not vested with the necessary power. (5) See third answer. There can be no compulsion. Anxious One.—(l) Your neighbour cannot do so unless he has in some way acquired a legal right to discharge the water on to your laai'd. (2) and (3) You omit to explain fully the nature of the right possessed by your neighbour. In the absence of that information, these questions cannot be answered. (4) You cannot compel him to clearn out the ditch in your paddock. Subscriber writes:—"A man dies, leaving a widow and young family. EJis estate is valued at £IOOO. What death duty is payable on that amount? Is the duty increased per cent, if the estate is valued at £29oo?"—Answ«c: You omit to explain how the estate is disposed of, and more .particularly the value of the succession acquired by the widow. The information 1 asked for cannot therefore be given.

M. Z. writes : —"A friend "of mine bought a -few acres of lard some 30 yeari ago, but never did anything with it except pay the rates on it. It has been, and is at present, occupied by other people. These have bought land all around it and surrounded it with their fencing. (1) Can they prevent a. right of way? (2) Can these people be made to pay rent for the use of the land?"—Answers: (1) and (2) No.

Peeplexed asks: " (1) Are farmers compelled to insure threshing-mill hands — men that they haven't engaged? (2) The contractor, or owner of the plant, is responsible for any insurance on the men. - is he not? Many farmers in and around this district have always been in the habit of insuring the men, thinking no doubt to be on the safe side."—Answers: (1) It is noil covn.puLsory, but it is advisable to do so. (2) No. The contractor looks after his own interests in that respect. The farmers are acting wisely in insuring them-selves-against possible claims by workers in the emplov of the mill-c.vner. Respect— (1) Yes. By the Education Act the teacher is constituted sfn occupier of the sc'ioolhouse. although the occupancy is declared to be by suffrance only. (2) Suspend tor. if she does not give a reasonable explanation, for gros»s mifbehpviour. and report the circumstances to the Education Beard. (3) No. If would not at the present juncture be sufficient cause for not - sending . the children to school. (4) The Education Board would hold a strict inquiry into the truth of the allegations and exercise its nower of peremptorily dismissing the teacher if the charge of gros3 misbehaviour were sustained. Right-op-way.—(l) You cculd not have read the reply carefully or you would have noticed that the "word " dedicate" was never used. The reply was in these words: "The borough council may by' soecial order declare any right-of-way within the meaning of any act in force at the time of its being laid cut. and which was laid out within a borough on or after November 2, 1678, but before January 1. 1887. and is* of not ie*r» width than 40ft, to be a public street. But the right-of-way muspt first be properly formed and constructed bv the owners thereof or frontagers thereto." C>) There is ro evidence to that effect. (3) See first ar,3wer. Settler writes:—"A and B are neighbours, and their boundary fence being out of repair thev as-res. verbally, to erect a new one each doing half. A stales his wire on hip own aide of the fence, and tells B to put his wire on hi? own side of the fence also. But B put his wire on A's side; also a lot of B's nosts are -off the line and on A's land. (1) Ca,n- A give B notice to pu* posts on the boundary line, and a'so (2) to shift wire to his own side. of the fence, and. upon B refusing to do eo. {3) can A do the work and sue B for the cost, and recover same?"—Answers: (1) Yes. - (2) and (3) No. A Reader kor over Thirty Years writes:—"A leased a farm off C for a iearm of years. A fired tusrock and fern and burned a considerable number of costs in boundary fence between A and D, but never replaced then:. New C has arranged with A for a certain turn ol money te i-'ke over fences and renair them, and aJIow him to leave the firm before his lease exr>ire3. Is Aor C rc-ppons-ible for the costs burned in Ds boundary fence?"-Answer: A is responsible ■, , .. - . M M. asks:—"(l) Con a widowed mother claim anything frcm her married daughter? The daughter has no private incore; her husband parni £3 per wr"k. avid he has three children to keen. (2) There is- another daughter, sinsle. earnin* Per week, out of which she has to pay ."• ex Cs por w:?k for sleeping and keep hc-rrelf in r10th.63. (81 Has the mother any claim on her son* 3 miner, in receipt of ±3O per year, out of which ho ha 3 to keep himself and Day 17s o*r we-k beard? Aneweis: (1) and (2) Xo claim can be made on the for tb* reason that thev are not in their re--restive positions abV to contribute anything. '3) The mother nnv make a c'.P'm on the y.-.ut.i, but only if she is a destitute csrson—that is to say. unable Jo .import herse!. Ijv her Owin nifani or labour.

J W writss: —"We <a eomnonn<?e committee) are the occupies of a mining reserve n<= a commonage. Tk-l reserve is bounded bv , fanners, one of whom has bid fences "and allows his »hseo <0 stray on {he commonaie. Hs contends that the con'ro:nn?? committee is li*H'e to pay half cn?t of the maintenance of the boundarv fence. (1) Can h"> make rs help to maintain and repair the fence? W Can he comoel us to pav 10 per ant. on the value of said fence? If he can (3) is thjreserve in question included as fenced land, and (4) does it corns -within the scope of the Impounding Act." The •fence in. quev tion is a. verv old one, and consists partly of an old sod wa.ll pul up over 30 years ago, and is in no sense a statutrry fence. —Answers: (1) and (2) No; the reason beine that the fence is rnot a sufficient one. (3) Xo. It is really unfenced land:—that i.s to say land net e:iclo?ed with * sufficient fence within the meaning of the Fencing Act. (i) Yes—to the extent that. bein& unfenced land within W-aiheiro County, the committee may claim full satisfaction for any actual damage sustained in. conserauence of the trespass of the farmer's cattle. Desckndant of a Subscriber since 1809 writes:— "A has a cowshed built on \»cundary of county road. He "£ea tha

Toad as a standing place for cows* thistfc the shed will rot hold. The said pieccf of ro*d in wet weather becomes a fair quagmire of filth and mud. It is hardly possible for a pedestrian to get through* (1) Can; he be made to keep the road i»' the same repair as if his traffic of cowtt were not there? A lets cows out of milk* ing shed to warder at their own sweet will back to paddock. His gates are neve* shivt. (2) Are they wandering cattlqV within the meaning of the Impounding • Act ? If anyone does drive them, it is about" an hour after they have been let out. . I also milk on the opposite eide of the road, buit open and close all mjyV gates and drive my cows to and fro. My shed is three chains and a-half. back. from the road reserve. (3) Can I impound) A's oows when opposite my land wheal one is driving them or in sight of tbem?i< (4) What is the penalty for a, bull being at largo on a public road unattendedt (5) What course do, I pursue to get « fence removed back off the road reseame f. The fence encroaches 12ft en to the roaeK reserve."—Answers: (1) No. (2) Yes. (3>; No. But you may authorise someone else to impound them.. (4) £2O. (6) Request the local authority having jurisdiction and! control over the road to effect its re-. moval. ■•«